View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 h | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-8 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |